THE UNIVERSITY

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 21, 25 July 1945, Page 9

THE UNIVERSITY

ATTITUDE TO RESEARCH CRITICISED P.A. AUCKLAND, This Day. A statement entitled, "Research and the University," advocating a complete change of attitude, has been issued by Professors R. S. Allan, J. C. Eccles, and H. G. Forder, and Drs. J. Packer, H. N. Parton, and K. R. Popper. "Rutherford might have returned to New Zealand instead of going to Montreal in 1898," says the statement. "But he knew very well that there was no hope of continuing and developing his research here. New Zealand has lost opportunities in recent years of attracting and keeping established and distinguished workers from Europe—opportunities from which many other countries are at present benefiting greatly. "The widespread idefeatist view which at present dominates the appointment policy, that New Zealand cannot afford to keep a good man, must be given up. We hold that New Zealand cannot afford to lose a good man. "It must be recognised that a specialist might achieve much greater educational result by teaching ;his specialty than by spreading his teachings over what is traditionally considered to be the balanced content of his subject. The view that it is the task of the university to hand to students a definite body of examinable knowledge must be discarded: The role played by examinations in the university is at present greatly overvalued. We believe that written examinations of the type at present in use are an insufficient and inconclusive test of the attainment of university education. The educational task of the university must be taken much more seriously than its role in the grading of students."

wash its hands of the consequences of its actions," Captain Price said the consequences of the commission's actions were before them 24 hours a day. Watersiders in Australia- had been awarded far greater rates of pay than those here.

As for the alleged "load on the British taxpayer," the British taxpayer was getting his goods handled more cheaply today than before the war and the Ministry of Transport had never once complained to New Zealand.

There was a certain' amount of idleness on the wharves, but it was very minor, -less than 1 per cent., said Captain Price. Less than one-half per cent, had been Jost through stoppages out of 13,000,000 man-hours worked in a year.

"I think I have demonstrated that most of the statements made by Mr. O'Shea cannot stand up to the cold light of fact," concluded Captain Price. "We don't agree that the Waterfront Control Commission is an irresponsible body that loads charges on to other bodies."

Opening his submission, Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson, solicitor for the board, said that from Captain Price's remarks it might appear that the commission's orders had increased costs somewhat, but that the board had received some benefit. But there had in fact been no benefit to the board. The bonus payment cost £10,000 to £11,000 a year for nothing, as the board's waterside workers did not work under contract. Further, on day ship work the men now had to receive eight hours' pay even if they did no work after being called.

Mr. Stevenson's submissions reiterated claims he had made in his opening address.

The Tribunal reserved its decision,